You are unemployed and want a new job, under a Democratic president you have a better chance of getting one!

[Nostra]

the girl can't comprehend the word authorization.

It's a big one.....

 

[justoffal]

You obviously don't want to rationally discuss a topic, and resort to cheap, infantile insults. You want me to let you know when I "want to be serious about a discussion". I am, let's have that discussion. How do you figure that supply-side i.e. trickle-down, laissez-faire economics is good for the working class?

Interesting conversation.... I always cringe when I see people use the words trickle down.... It's misleading in that it infers there are actually other methods of operating an economy.

I'm not necessarily defending corporate America but isn't everything actually trickle down? Everything from social security to EBT to taxes on paychecks.

Where do you see anything that is not subject to that type of system? If you do....exactly what type of system are you suggesting?

 

[protectionist]

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted global supply chains, leading to higher prices for goods and services, including energy. Additionally, the war in Ukraine significantly impacted global oil prices, contributing to the rise in gas prices. Blaming these increases solely on the Biden administration ignores the broader, global context that has influenced these price changes.

For the US, the Democrat initiated and maintained COVID-19 pandemic, was essentially over, and was history. We had already recovered nicely, with Trump's last 2 quarters of excellent GDPs, the first an all-time record of 34.8%.

What disrupted supply chains was Biden's oil drilling cancellation caused super inflation of gas/deisel prices, whereby some manufacturers found themselves unable to ship their goods to stores AT ALL.

 

[jc456]

Interesting conversation.... I always cringe when I see people use the words trickle down.... It's misleading in that it infers there are actually other methods
Of operating on an economy.

I'm not necessarily defending corporate America but isn't everything actually trickle down? Everything from social security to EBT to taxes on paychecks.
Where do you see anything that is not subject to that type of system? If you do exactly what type of system sre you suggesting?

Thank you!!! that dude is simply entangled in demofk stupid.

 

[Lastamender]

It was your brain that was stolen, not the election.

The 2020 election was obviously stolen. There are new facts coming to light everyday. Get your troll ass informed.

 

[protectionist]

The accusation that the Bidens "caused" inflation by bringing in "millions of illegal aliens" and canceling oil drilling is not supported by evidence. The idea that immigration directly causes inflation, especially on the scale mentioned, is not backed by economic data.

BEEP! BEEP! BEEP!
Uh oh! It's the insidous "data" beeper alarm. Leftists think all they have to do is throw their favorite word "data" around, and everybody will bow down.

They arent astute enough know that, unlike them, the American people are able to recognize when/how things happen right before our eyes.

Hey leftists! Does the "data" indicate that fish can swim ?

 

[Faun]

Fawnboi and his semantic dumbassery.

You claim in 2024 is wasn't necessary. Bush was operating in the moment, and he determined it was..................just as Congress authorized.

You lose again, Simp.

The administration lied us into war, Dumbfuck...

 

[jc456]

The administration lied us into war, Dumbfuck...

you mean intelligence and congress lied.

 

[TruthNotBS]

then provide a definition of your demofks trickle down phrase!!!

I can define trickle-down economics for you, no problem. Why didn't you ask earlier? Here it is:

Trickle-down economics (a.k.a. supply-side economics or Reaganomics) is an economic theory that suggests benefits provided to the wealthy, such as tax cuts, deregulation, and other incentives, will eventually "trickle down" to the broader population. The idea is that when the rich have more money, they will invest in businesses, create jobs, and drive economic growth, thereby benefiting everyone, including those at the lower end of the economic spectrum.

The reality is that the "trickle down" doesn't trickle.

​

Trickle-down economics is deeply flawed and fundamentally unjust. This approach exacerbates inequality by concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a few, while the supposed benefits for the working class rarely materialize. Instead of wealth trickling down, it often stays at the top, leading to greater disparities in income and opportunity.

​

If you're not going to adopt socialism, well then at least do the following. You must emphasize the importance of demand-side economics, rather than the "supply-side". Economic growth is more effectively driven by ensuring that the working classes have enough purchasing power to drive demand for goods and services. In my view, policies should focus on putting money directly into the hands of those who are more likely to spend it purchasing goods and services, thereby stimulating the economy from the bottom up, rather than relying on the uncertain and often delayed effects of wealth accumulating at the top.

There you go. Shoot.

 

[Lastamender]

I can define trickle-down economics for you, no problem. Why didn't you ask earlier? Here it is:

Trickle-down economics (a.k.a. supply-side economics or Reaganomics) is an economic theory that suggests benefits provided to the wealthy, such as tax cuts, deregulation, and other incentives, will eventually "trickle down" to the broader population. The idea is that when the rich have more money, they will invest in businesses, create jobs, and drive economic growth, thereby benefiting everyone, including those at the lower end of the economic spectrum.

The reality is that the "trickle down" doesn't trickle.

View attachment 1002272​

Trickle-down economics is deeply flawed and fundamentally unjust. This approach exacerbates inequality by concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a few, while the supposed benefits for the working class rarely materialize. Instead of wealth trickling down, it often stays at the top, leading to greater disparities in income and opportunity.

View attachment 1002273​

If you're not going to adopt socialism, well then at least do the following. You must emphasize the importance of demand-side economics, rather than the "supply-side". Economic growth is more effectively driven by ensuring that the working classes have enough purchasing power to drive demand for goods and services. In my view, policies should focus on putting money directly into the hands of those who are more likely to spend it purchasing goods and services, thereby stimulating the economy from the bottom up, rather than relying on the uncertain and often delayed effects of wealth accumulating at the top.

There you go. Shoot.

All those things you call advantages for the wealthy spur job growth and increase wages. trump proved that. What we have now is not working.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Not entirely true. All based upon unchallenged interpretation of COTUS.

When the Bush administration invaded Iraq, it relied at least as much on what President Bush claimed was his inherent “authority as Commander in Chief” as it did on the Iraq War AUMF. In announcing the invasion, President Bush said he was acting “pursuant” to his constitutional authority and only “consistent” with Congress’s enactment.

The assertion was striking. The Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the authority to declare war. It also gives Congress the power to create and regulate the military. Although the Constitution vests the president with an inherent authority to “repel sudden attacks” on U.S. territory and persons, nothing in its text or design suggests that a president may unilaterally initiate hostilities.

The Bush administration’s broad reading of constitutional authority, however, was no anomaly; Presidents Obama, Trump, and Biden have similarly encroached on Congress’s war powers. President Obama cited his constitutional authority, not an AUMF, as the original basis for hostilities against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. President Trump cited his constitutional authority, in addition to the Iraq War AUMF, as legal grounds for the 2020 strike on General Soleimani. And President Biden has contended that congressional authorization is not needed for his administration’s tit-for-tat hostilities against Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria, which he claims fall within his power to defend U.S. forces and foreign partners.

Curb the President's War Powers to Prevent Future Iraqs

Congress must act to guard against endless military adventurism.

www.brennancenter.org

The crazy thing is, that AUMF is still in effect today.

 

[TruthNotBS]

BEEP! BEEP! BEEP!
Uh oh! It's the insidous "data" beeper alarm. Leftists think all they have to do is throw their favorite word "data" around, and everybody will bow down.

They arent astute enough know that, unlike them, the American people are able to recognize when/how things happen right before our eyes.

Hey leftists! Does the "data" indicate that fish can swim ?

Protectionist, your response is just an attempt to dismiss facts with sarcasm instead of engaging with the argument. Data isn't some magic word that leftists "throw around", it's the foundation of understanding how economies work.

Immigration and energy policies are complex issues, and serious discussions about them require evidence, not gut feelings or anecdotes. Ignoring data in favor of simplistic, knee-jerk reactions doesn't lead to real solutions; it just perpetuates misinformation. If you want to debate these issues seriously, you'll need more than just snarky, infantile one-liners.

 

[jc456]

I can define trickle-down economics for you, no problem. Why didn't you ask earlier? Here it is:

Trickle-down economics (a.k.a. supply-side economics or Reaganomics) is an economic theory that suggests benefits provided to the wealthy, such as tax cuts, deregulation, and other incentives, will eventually "trickle down" to the broader population. The idea is that when the rich have more money, they will invest in businesses, create jobs, and drive economic growth, thereby benefiting everyone, including those at the lower end of the economic spectrum.

The reality is that the "trickle down" doesn't trickle.

View attachment 1002272​

Trickle-down economics is deeply flawed and fundamentally unjust. This approach exacerbates inequality by concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a few, while the supposed benefits for the working class rarely materialize. Instead of wealth trickling down, it often stays at the top, leading to greater disparities in income and opportunity.

View attachment 1002273​

If you're not going to adopt socialism, well then at least do the following. You must emphasize the importance of demand-side economics, rather than the "supply-side". Economic growth is more effectively driven by ensuring that the working classes have enough purchasing power to drive demand for goods and services. In my view, policies should focus on putting money directly into the hands of those who are more likely to spend it purchasing goods and services, thereby stimulating the economy from the bottom up, rather than relying on the uncertain and often delayed effects of wealth accumulating at the top.

There you go. Shoot.

okay, thanks. But again, it is nothing but demofk rhetoric to imply something that isn't. BTW, started by demofk Will Rogers way before Reagan. So, what exactly did Reagan's 1981 tax cut policy factually do?
Did it cut taxes for everyone?
You omit that part right?
intended to omit that part right?

 

[Lastamender]

Protectionist, your response is just an attempt to dismiss facts with sarcasm instead of engaging with the argument. Data isn't some magic word that leftists "throw around", it's the foundation of understanding how economies work.

Immigration and energy policies are complex issues, and serious discussions about them require evidence, not gut feelings or anecdotes. Ignoring data in favor of simplistic, knee-jerk reactions doesn't lead to real solutions; it just perpetuates misinformation. If you want to debate these issues seriously, you'll need more than just snarky, infantile one-liners.

A lot of data was ignored for the 2020 election and is still being ignored. Good for the goose......

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I can define trickle-down economics for you, no problem. Why didn't you ask earlier? Here it is:

Trickle-down economics (a.k.a. supply-side economics or Reaganomics) is an economic theory that suggests benefits provided to the wealthy, such as tax cuts, deregulation, and other incentives, will eventually "trickle down" to the broader population. The idea is that when the rich have more money, they will invest in businesses, create jobs, and drive economic growth, thereby benefiting everyone, including those at the lower end of the economic spectrum.

The reality is that the "trickle down" doesn't trickle.

View attachment 1002272​

Trickle-down economics is deeply flawed and fundamentally unjust. This approach exacerbates inequality by concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a few, while the supposed benefits for the working class rarely materialize. Instead of wealth trickling down, it often stays at the top, leading to greater disparities in income and opportunity.

View attachment 1002273​

If you're not going to adopt socialism, well then at least do the following. You must emphasize the importance of demand-side economics, rather than the "supply-side". Economic growth is more effectively driven by ensuring that the working classes have enough purchasing power to drive demand for goods and services. In my view, policies should focus on putting money directly into the hands of those who are more likely to spend it purchasing goods and services, thereby stimulating the economy from the bottom up, rather than relying on the uncertain and often delayed effects of wealth accumulating at the top.

There you go. Shoot.

Tax cuts, deregulation, and other incentives work every time.

 

[TruthNotBS]

All those things you call advantages for the wealthy spur job growth and increase wages. trump proved that. What we have now is not working.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017, which was the cornerstone of Trump's economic policy, did indeed lower taxes for most Americans, but the lion's share of the benefits went to corporations and the wealthy. According to studies, these tax cuts did little to boost long-term wage growth for working-class families, and any immediate gains were offset by rising healthcare costs, housing expenses, and the reduction in public services due to cuts in federal programs.

Moreover, the idea that tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations will automatically lead to job creation and higher wages, core tenets of trickle-down economics, has been widely debunked. What actually happens is that corporations use much of their tax windfall for stock buybacks and dividends, which primarily benefit shareholders, not workers. The promised "trickle-down" effect always fails to materialize for the average American worker, who sees little to no meaningful improvement in their economic situation.

In contrast, policies that invest directly in the working and middle classes, such as increased minimum wages, stronger labor protections, free education and job training (technical training), and universal healthcare (healthy workforce = more production and prosperity for everyone), are more effective in driving sustainable economic growth and reducing inequality. Trump's approach didn't serve the long-term interests of working-class families; it mostly served to further enrich the already wealthy. The members of his own socioeconomic class (the ruling, plutocratic elites).

 

[TruthNotBS]

Tax cuts, deregulation, and other incentives work every time.

The very opposite is true. It impoverishes the working class in the long term, and creates economic crises, requiring more bailouts for the rich (socialism for the wealthy/public funds save the day, the profits are private, the losses are made public). It undermines democracy, centralizing power into the hands of a few plutocrats, who use government to serve themselves at the expense of the public good.

 

[Lastamender]

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017, which was the cornerstone of Trump's economic policy, did indeed lower taxes for most Americans, but the lion's share of the benefits went to corporations and the wealthy. According to studies, these tax cuts did little to boost long-term wage growth for working-class families, and any immediate gains were offset by rising healthcare costs, housing expenses, and the reduction in public services due to cuts in federal programs.

Moreover, the idea that tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations will automatically lead to job creation and higher wages, core tenets of trickle-down economics, has been widely debunked. What actually happens is that corporations use much of their tax windfall for stock buybacks and dividends, which primarily benefit shareholders, not workers. The promised "trickle-down" effect always fails to materialize for the average American worker, who sees little to no meaningful improvement in their economic situation.

In contrast, policies that invest directly in the working and middle classes, such as increased minimum wages, stronger labor protections, free education and job training (technical training), and universal healthcare (healthy workforce = more production and prosperity for everyone), are more effective in driving sustainable economic growth and reducing inequality. Trump's approach didn't serve the long-term interests of working-class families; it mostly served to further enrich the already wealthy. The members of his own socioeconomic class (the ruling, plutocratic elites).

85% of Americans paid less tax. No one else has come close to a win like that for the citizen.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The very opposite is true. It impoverishes the working class in the long term, and creates economic crises, requiring more bailouts for the rich (socialism for the wealthy/public funds save the day). It undermines democracy, centralizing power into the hands of a few plutocrats, who use government to serve them at the expense of the public good.

How do tax cuts and deregulation impoverish the working class in the long term?

 

[TruthNotBS]

85% of Americans paid less tax. No one else has come close to a win like that for the citizen.

Measily tax cuts for the working class, with more expenses. Nothing really gained.